Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-31 17:23:23
Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On Sunday 31 January 2010 10:33:56 pm Patrick Horgan wrote:
>
>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/31/2010 02:56 PM, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wasn't there a "rejected proposal for" logo? I guess it was dropped
>>>> for the same reason that "under construction for" was renamed to
>>>> "under construction". How about "in preparation for" and "rejected
>>>> by"? These would at least make a statement about the relation to
>>>> boost.
>>>>
>>> IMHO, the "rejected" logo makes a disservice for the library, as it
>>> marks it as something of inappropriate quality for Boost in eyes of
>>> users. Therefore I'd like it to be rephrased to something more
>>> neutral, such as "unofficial extension" or something of that kind.
>>>
>> LOL! I can't imagine anyone would proudly proclaim "my software was
>> rejected by boost!" If they are rejected by boost though, they have no
>> business showing a boost logo associated with their software (unless
>> they're using boost, then they could have the using boost logo).
>>
>> I agree that things like using should be blue. I feel that things that
>> say, "I'm not a part of boost yet but I want to be", should be in red so
>> that people notice that this isn't boost.
>>
>> I'm glad to see some good conversation here. What's the difference
>> between "proposed for" and "under construction for", and is it a big
>> enough difference to have both?
>>
>
> No I don't think so. The idea was to somehow capture the state of the
> submission. "Under construction for" was saying it was not ready for
> submission. "Proposed for" or "Proposal for" was for saying this is the
> proposed version.
>
> I have changed my mind and suggest to not use the logo for communicating
> details of submission or release state. Other means are simpler and better.
> I am thinking there are 3 valid use-cases that deserve logo variants.
>
> 1.
> Official boost - the original logo
>
> 2.
> Preliminary Boost - need placeholder logo in proposed documentation for
> planned and actual submissions for review, this logo should not lead to the
> misinterpretation that this is official Boost.
>
This could be the proposed for icon.
> 2.
> Using Boost - probably a smaller almost icon sized logo that does not take
> over the users website :-)
>
You can make it so small you can't see it if you want. The master is a
vector graphic and it can export at any pixel-width you want. I made a
pretty small one on my proposal web-site now so that you can see that
the smaller letters become almost invisible when too small.
Patrick